NOISE (Hansard, 6 May 1970)

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walthamstow, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to maintain environmental amenities by restricting noise levels of motor vehicles, motor cycles and aircraft; and for purposes connected therewith. I do not think that many hon. Members would quarrel with the wording in the Declaration for the Management of National Environment in Europe, which proposed that a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights should be drawn up which would guarantee the right of every individual to freedom from undue noise and other nuisances. Yet noise is all about us and increasing in volume. Whether it be in the streets of a city or in the depths of the country, it is now quite impossible to get away from the noise of aircraft or motor vehicles. If it is not the raucous noise of motor bicycles, it is the thunderous din of jet aircraft; if it is not the roar of a sports car, it is the rumbling of a heavy diesel lorry. Noise, like its definition, is unwanted sound.

As we have learned from medical research, noise levels of 80 to 85 decibels constitute a hazard to our mental, physical and social well-being in terms of the stress they impose upon those who have to hear them. During the past 10 years, some noise legislation has found its way on to the Statute Book. There was the Noise Abatement Act, 1960, which, alas, last year resulted in only 450 prosecutions. The Minister was unable to tell me where those prosecutions were imposed. More recently, there has been the Civil Aviation (Noise Certification) Order, which was debated a fortnight ago, and on 1st April the regulations were brought in laying down noise levels for motor vehicles. These were based on the findings of a committee, headed by Sir Alan Wilson, which reported in 1963 about noise. It has taken the House seven years to put into effect what the committee said in 1963.

We must wonder whether we can really afford such a niggardly pace in something so important to our environment. No doubt there are some very good reasons on the part of those who make cars, 415 lorries and motor cycles why that legislation should not have come in more quickly. As the Director of the Cycle and Motor-Cycle Association wrote to me, when I asked for his views: It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the principal manufacturing companies of motor-cycles in the United Kingdom would cease production of vehicles for the home market if totally unrealistic noise levels were imposed upon them. The crucial word there is "unrealistic". I am sure that the car and lorry manufacturers would also talk about unrealism if we tried to impose noise levels which came nearer to what is desirable in a pleasant environment.

But the question is: do we seek noise levels which keep pace with what industry finds easily achievable, or do we in this House consider it to be our task to say what are acceptable limits, taking into account the medical factors as we know them, the simple evidence of our ears and then what industry says is reasonable? I submit that that is our task. After all, if Rolls-Royce can produce a car with a noise level somewhere in the 70 decibel range—a car which the company itself says it designed to make as quiet as possible—why cannot other manufacturers do likewise?

The irony is that if they want to sell their cars to Switzerland, or to West Germany, they are forced to do so. So why should not what is good enough for Switzerland and West Germany be good enough for us? Why are we so slow in imposing the kind of restrictions that we should have?

By the same token the motor-cycle manufacturers may talk about unrealism. But we all know that the police are equipped with an excellent motor-cycle, euphemistically called the "Noddy" bike, which has a very much lower noise level than many motor-cycles now roaring about our streets. I suspect that if "Noddy" bikes can be made in one engine capacity, they can be made in other engine capacities.

Therefore, it is not unrealistic for me today to ask leave to bring in a Bill to restrict noise levels. I aim to produce legislation which will progressively reduce noise levels for cars, lorries and motorcycles below those which are now emitted.

It is one thing to talk about laying down noise levels, but quite another to 416 say how they will be enforced. In 1968, noise meters were introduced as the means by which these new motor regulations would be enforceable. But virtually none of our police forces has noise meters, for the simple reason, as a senior police officer said, "We are still trying them out to find satisfactory arrangements for putting them into practical operation. For one thing, we have had difficulty in finding suitable sites". It is also an incredible fact that there is not one noise meter in the Metropolitan area at the moment. Without noise meters the noise levels laid down in the motor regulations cannot be enforced.

Indeed, a Metropolitan Police officer told me this morning, "Once upon a time we could get a prosecution on the noise that a policeman heard. Today, if you take that case to court, you will be asked by defence counsel to give the meter reading. We have not got meters with which to give those readings, so prosecutions are going down and the volume of noise is rising."

Even in the noise levels set down in the motor regulations a figure is spelt out which is higher than that which Sir Alan Wilson said would be achievable in 1963. Therefore, I cannot feel that we are putting much pressure on the motor industry.

There is then the question of aircraft noise. Hon. Members frequently raise the question of the noise which their constituents have to suffer if they live near airports. On Monday of this week there was such a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, I thought correctly: I think that everyone is prepared to put up with a reasonable amount of noise if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to limit the period of time he has to suffer it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 153.] Alas, the House is not giving people much hope of a limited period during which they will have to suffer it, because the Civil Aviation (Noise Certification) Order, to which I referred, does not apply to airliners flying now, but to airliners still basically on the drawing boards. Therefore, people can find little or no comfort in the legislation that the House has so far passed for controlling civil aircraft noise levels.

417 There is no reason why airlines operating airliners which create excessive noise, particularly on night flights, should not be severely penalised. Yet they are not. Therefore, I submit that, just as with cars, motor-cycles and lorries there is room for new legislation, so there is room for new legislation to control the noise emitted by civil airliners.

The truth is that, like the man in the B.B.C. "Doomwatch" programme on noise, the individual today feels that he is a peripheral nuisance whose voice is unimportant and will rapidly be drowned in the thunder of diesel lorries and high-powered jet engines.

For that reason, and because I believe that the noises to which I have already referred are a serious menace to our health and to the enjoyment of our environment, I beg to ask leave to bring in a Noise Bill.